[UncleVanya]

---------- Post added 27th Jan 2015 at 20:24 ----------

You can remove the foot, But not the ring.

Hummm... given that fact does anyone else rotate it to about 2 o'clock to get the foot out of the way when hand holding?

[nomadkng]

I recently obtained a 60-250 Pentax that is in great shape (like new) and at a great price. However after getting it I'm stumped. The lens is large and heavy and while it can be handheld for some uses it's really more of a tripod lens I think. I can think of a lot of uses for it but they are all pretty narrow. I wanted to know what others are doing with this or similar large heavy sharp long zooms.

With that in mind let me know what you use your big zoom for and how much you use it. Also if you have lighter options with limitations tell me what drives you to use the heavy one or the light one.

I have the Sigma 100-300 f4 and the Sigma 50-150 HSM. The 100-300 is about as big if not a little bigger than the 60-250. I have used it for Air Shows, Monster Truck Jams, birds, zoos, bears, whales, NASCAR, cityscapes and even waterfalls. It's biggest limitation is a longer (6ft?) minimum focusing distance. I have used it handheld for a 4 hour whale watching tour in Monterey Bay. My thighs were more tired from balancing in chop than my arms from the lens...

The Sigma 50-150 focuses a tad faster and is f2.8. If I know I'm going to be closer to subjects (read controlled environment such as aviaries/zoos/portraits/stadiums) or I just need that extra stop, I'll use the 50-150. A lot of times, the 50-150 becomes my "next time lens". The 100-300 is my default go to, but sometimes I find it too long and "the next time" I shoot a similar subject with the 50-150. For example, my experience at this years monster jam was that the 100-300 was just a little too tight for all the flips and leaping trucks. I shot mostly at 100-150mm, so the 50-150 will be my go to lens next year.

I would think the 60-250 would be just as versatile. For me, IQ matters more than weight. It's why I sold my 55-300 and never looked back. It's the trade off and literal burden I'm willing to bear for sharp, high quality images.

[bdery]

Does anyone know if the Tripod ring is removable? I see the flathead screw on the side - does that remove it?

Only the foot, see here:

Review: Pentax DA* 60-250mm F4 - Construction and Handling | PentaxForums.com Reviews

It's an excellent design. Removing the foot is faster than fumbling with a whole ring, plus it takes much less space inside the camera bag.

Hummm... given that fact does anyone else rotate it to about 2 o'clock to get the foot out of the way when hand holding?

I actually like slipping my hand between the lens and the foot, and when using my Op-Tech sling strap I have one clip attached to the foot. But most of the time the foot is removed when I handhold the lens (which is, often).

[UncleVanya]

Only the foot, see here:

Review: Pentax DA* 60-250mm F4 - Construction and Handling | PentaxForums.com Reviews

It's an excellent design. Removing the foot is faster than fumbling with a whole ring, plus it takes much less space inside the camera bag.



I actually like slipping my hand between the lens and the foot, and when using my Op-Tech sling strap I have one clip attached to the foot. But most of the time the foot is removed when I handhold the lens (which is, often).

Thanks for the link. My lens has a foot that looks like that but is MUCH MUCH closer to the lens than that. My beefy hand couldn't possibly fit in the gap between the lens and the foot.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[crewl1]

Thanks for the link. My lens has a foot that looks like that but is MUCH MUCH closer to the lens than that. My beefy hand couldn't possibly fit in the gap between the lens and the foot.

That foot is the wrong one, it looks like it is for the DA*300.
The 60-250 foot is taller.

If you need to get a replacement and use an Arca Swiss setup this is a good option.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/218882-fanotec-tripod-foot-p...da-lenses.html

[UncleVanya]

That foot is the wrong one, it looks like it is for the DA*300.
The 60-250 foot is taller.

If you need to get a replacement and use an Arca Swiss setup this is a good option.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/136-pentax-q/218882-fanotec-tripod-foot-p...da-lenses.html

Oddly if you look on Google you will see pictures both ways for the 60-250 - I wonder if Pentax has sold some of them with the wrong foot? It fits a lot better in the bag with this foot I'd wager...

[normhead]

Oddly if you look on Google you will see pictures both ways for the 60-250 - I wonder if Pentax has sold some of them with the wrong foot? It fits a lot better in the bag with this foot I'd wager...

Naw, the foot doesn't fit in the bag.

[UncleVanya]

Naw, the foot doesn't fit in the bag.

With the foot I have it does - that's a plus I guess.

[Clarkey]

The 60-250mm. Quite simply, it is currently my best Pentax lens. I shoot it hand-held. I do notice it when carrying all day, and I use a black rapid strap with mine. Removing the tripod foot saves some valuable weight if you are not going to use a strap.
I came from a 55-300mm (original, with quick-shift) as the teeth-grinding I was doing every time I heard the slow, loud focusing was costing me dental repair money....kidding, but not really.

The weather sealing is nice, and the colour and contrast pretty signature. I am looking at getting a lighter body though, a couple of hundred grams less would be nice.

I've found it useful for everything really.

(Panoguy with his weapon of choice)

K5SP0997.jpg by clarke_ag, on Flickr


K5SP1103.jpg by clarke_ag, on Flickr


K5SP1198.jpg by clarke_ag, on Flickr

Adding a 100% crop at F5.6:

Indulgence by clarke_ag, on Flickr

[audiobomber]

So I'm left with the 50-135. It has great IQ from wide open, the AF is decisive (but not super quick), it is relatively small and compact (and stays that way at maximum focal length) and is WR. If I really want reach I use the DA*300 +/- 1.4TC

How is the 50-135 auto-focus with the HD 1.4X?

[Wild Mark]

I recently obtained a 60-250 Pentax that is in great shape (like new) and at a great price. However after getting it I'm stumped. The lens is large and heavy and while it can be handheld for some uses it's really more of a tripod lens I think. I can think of a lot of uses for it but they are all pretty narrow. I wanted to know what others are doing with this or similar large heavy sharp long zooms.

I also have the 55-300 and the 50-135 as well as the Pentax HD TC 1.4x and a 400mm Sigma f/5.6 lens that is low contrast and soft but fun due to the size/weight/focal length. My current uses would be Birds at the feeder, squirrels in the yard, model & high powered rockets on the pad or in flight, wild animals in zoos and animal parks, etc. The 55-300 and Sigma 400 are also used in this way. The 50-135 with TC might be useful for some of this as well.

With that in mind let me know what you use your big zoom for and how much you use it. Also if you have lighter options with limitations tell me what drives you to use the heavy one or the light one.

Well my suggestion is not going to help you except perhaps steer you away from a certain lens.

I use the SMC Pentax FA*80-200/2.8 and it is very heavy. But weight is necessary if you want glass and this lens has it is spades.

A few shots from last night at the soccer. I use this lens because:

1) f2.8 gives a narrow depth of field, which is critical for accurate AF functioning when coupled with say K3 or K5iis bodies (K30 too?) - prior bodies have AF points that are not optimised for f2.8
2) one stop down the photos are sharp. When combined with ISO 200-800 one can get low light performance with AF and no flash (sharp images rather than blurry ones)
3) The optics are so good that lens acts like a stack of primes through the entire range. Really, very good performance.
4) You can club an mugger to death with one of these haven't had a need for this thought - thank goodness

[Sandy Hancock]

How is the 50-135 auto-focus with the HD 1.4X?

Pretty much as it is on its own. Deliberate, if a little ponderous. Fine for all but the most frenetic unpredictable action.

[normhead]

Pretty much as it is on its own. Deliberate, if a little ponderous. Fine for all but the most frenetic unpredictable action.

So the 50-135 plus 1.4 HD pretty much makes a DA*60-250 redundant ?

At 24 oz.... compared to 36 oz you'd still have an ƒ4 lens with the TC on, and very close to the same magnification.

[audiobomber]

So the 50-135 plus 1.4 HD pretty much makes a DA*60-250 redundant ?

At 24 oz.... compared to 36 oz you'd still have an ƒ4 lens with the TC on, and very close to the same magnification.

But you can add a 1.4X TC to the 60-250 to make it longer (and slower). There is no 2X TC for the 50-135 that allows AF as far as I know.

[Sandy Hancock]

So the 50-135 plus 1.4 HD pretty much makes a DA*60-250 redundant ?

At 24 oz.... compared to 36 oz you'd still have an ƒ4 lens with the TC on, and very close to the same magnification.

That is one reason why I am happy to "settle" for the DA*50-135, with the DA*300 as the next step. Another is the superior handling/internal zoom.